Global Warming Liars

[Toddsterpatriot]

What's been a waste is this thread and trying to talk with you Todd.

And you almost had me convinced we needed to spend $76 trillion.

You think Michael Mann will ever pay the court judgment against him?

 

[Frankeneinstein]

It's a global scam & has been going on for over 100 years.

At least 100 years...every drought brought in the weather con-men who for a price would make the weather behave itself...the last time was the 70's ice age, before that it was the dust bowl, now it is, well it is whatever they want it to be...there is always a market for this age old scam.

 

[Crick]

Crick said:
From Wikipedia's article on the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

There is a strong scientific consensus that the Earth is warming and that this warming is mainly caused by human activities. This consensus is supported by various studies of scientists' opinions and by position statements of scientific organizations, many of which explicitly agree with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) synthesis reports.

Bull Shit! A "general" question does not a consensus make. This is hog wash.

Billy Boy, what generality in the above statement: "the Earth is warming that this warming is mainly caused by human activities" do you believe makes the consensus invalid?

 

[Crick]

At least 100 years...every drought brought in the weather con-men who for a price would make the weather behave itself...the last time was the 70's ice age, before that it was the dust bowl, now it is, well it is whatever they want it to be...there is always a market for this age old scam.

Who do you believe is making themselves rich in this way?

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Who do you believe is making themselves rich in this way?

this is a typical scam artist question, the implication being if you can't put a name or face on the scam then we're suppose to believe that the scam is impossible, where as the truth is if you can't put a name or face on it then it surely is a scam.

And rich? perhaps/probably but your word not mine...the bulk of the money is to prop up sagging left wing economies around the world who already have too much on their plates as it is...if it were legit then it wouldn't matter if it were anthropologic or not, but to get us to foot the bill it must be tabled to our actions.

It's all about the money...the earth cycles through these types of things, if the earth is warming up it just means the end of the last ice age has not yet occurred, it will be over when the temperature reaches its/an apex and then over time begins to rescind, heading back into another ice age.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Billy Boy, what generality in the above statement: "the Earth is warming that this warming is mainly caused by human activities" do you believe makes the consensus invalid?

I can't speak for billy but for me this alone would do it:

supported by various studies of scientists' opinions

Supported by opinions? even if I believed man made climate change were real I would not put any stock at all in that claim!

various studies? a scam artist would use that in place of "cherry picked" and "selective studies"

I don't see anything in the language that would be said any differently than a scam would say it.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

this is a typical scam artist question, the implication being if you can't put a name or face on the scam then we're suppose to believe that the scam is impossible, where as the truth is if you can't put a name or face on it then it surely is a scam.

And rich? perhaps/probably but your word not mine...the bulk of the money is to prop up sagging left wing economies around the world who already have too much on their plates as it is...if it were legit then it wouldn't matter if it were EDIT: anthropogenic or not, but to get us to foot the bill it must be tabled to our actions.

It's all about the money...the earth cycles through these types of things, if the earth is warming up it just means the end of the last ice age has not yet occurred, it will be over when the temperature reaches its/an apex and then over time begins to rescind, heading back into another ice age.

 

[Crick]

I can't speak for billy but for me this alone would do it:

Supported by opinions? even if I believed man made climate change were real I would not put any stock at all in that claim!

various studies? a scam artist would use that in place of "cherry picked" and "selective studies"

I don't see anything in the language that would be said any differently than a scam would say it.

An enormous percentage of the studies done on climate have concluded that global warming is taking place and that human GHG emissions are the primary cause.

The term "scientist's opinions" was from a sentence referencing studies done ON SCIENTIST'S OPINIONS regarding anthropogenic global warming. The definition of "consensus" is "a general accordance in opinion".

To claim that an absence of anyone committing a crime is evidence that a crime has been committed is laughably paranoid nonsense.

Your comment about propping up "sagging left wing economies" is irrelevant and, again, nonsense. The charge that in order to get rich, all the world's climate scientists have been lying to us for the last few decades has been the absolute cornerstone of the denier position. If that rambling, shambolic blather is the best you can come up with supporting such a core contention, then you really need... help.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

An enormous percentage of the studies done on climate have concluded that global warming is taking place and that human GHG emissions are the primary cause.

The term "scientist's opinions" was from a sentence referencing studies done ON SCIENTIST'S OPINIONS regarding anthropogenic global warming. The definition of "consensus" is "a general accordance in opinion".

To claim that an absence of anyone committing a crime is evidence that a crime has been committed is laughably paranoid nonsense.

Your comment about propping up "sagging left wing economies" is irrelevant and, again, nonsense. The charge that in order to get rich, all the world's climate scientists have been lying to us for the last few decades has been the absolute cornerstone of the denier position. If that rambling, shambolic blather is the best you can come up with supporting such a core contention, then you really need... help.

everything in that post defines pseudo intellectualism, especially [but not limited to] the non sequitur about crime...
...I would have said it was especially 'the sagging economies needing money is irrelevant to wanting money'[paraphrased] but I think just pointing it out will do a better job...
and then of course after the pseudo intellectual beard was shaved off the name calling and demands that I seek help appear as if on cue...
the only ones being fooled by any of this climate scam are those who want to be fooled by it.

 

[ReinyDays]

The definition of "consensus" is "a general accordance in opinion".

That's a philosophical position ... not a scientific one ... you're not knowledgeable enough to understand these opinions anyway ... you're just lying ...

 

[Crick]

It is a linguistic position. In English, the definition of a word is determined by its common usage. That is the common understanding of the meaning of the consensus. You and your friends attempts to attack the acceptance of AGW among the science community are futile and smack of desperation.

And your post is an excellent example of the faults of ad hominem attacks.

 

[ding]

It is a linguistic position. In English, the definition of a word is determined by its common usage. That is the common understanding of the meaning of the consensus. You and your friends attempts to attack the acceptance of AGW among the science community are futile and smack of desperation.

And your post is an excellent example of the faults of ad hominem attacks.

Science doesn't have attacks, it has challenges. Unless of course you are a drama queen.

 

[ChemEngineer]

the only ones being fooled by any of this climate scam are those who want to be fooled by it.

Nota bene:
The Unabomber had a well-worn copy of Al Gore's Earth in the Balance in his rathole cabin as he constructed bombs to kill and maim people he felt were not treating the earth in accordance with his and Al Gore's desires.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Nota bene:
The Unabomber had a well-worn copy of Al Gore's Earth in the Balance in his rathole cabin as he constructed bombs to kill and maim people he felt were not treating the earth in accordance with his and Al Gore's desires.

He was building bombs and killing people long before Gore wrote that piece of crap.

 

[Crick]

Crick said:
It is a linguistic position. In English, the definition of a word is determined by its common usage. That is the common understanding of the meaning of the consensus. You and your friends attempts to attack the acceptance of AGW among the science community are futile and smack of desperation.

And your post is an excellent example of the faults of ad hominem attacks.

Science doesn't have attacks

That's right, it doesn't.

 

[ding]

That's right, it doesn't.

This drive to present a single “scientific consensus” on issues has given the IPCC epistemic authority in matters of climate policy” (Beck et al. 2014). Many researchers have noted that this has been achieved by suppressing dissenting views on any issues where there is still scientific disagreement (Beck et al. 2014; Hoppe & Rodder 2019 ¨ ; van der Sluijs et al. 2010; Curry & Webster 2011; Sarewitz 2011; Hulme 2013). As a result, an accurate knowledge of those issues where there is ongoing scientific dissensus (and why) is often missing from the IPCC reports. This is concerning for policy makers relying on the IPCC reports because, as van der Sluijs et al. (2010) note, “The consensus approach deprives policy makers of a full view of the plurality of scientific opinions within and between the various scientific disciplines that study the climate problem” (van der Sluijs et al. 2010). This suppression of open-minded scientific inquiry is hindering scientific progress into improving our understanding of these challenging issues.

 

[Crick]

This drive to present a single “scientific consensus” on issues has given the IPCC epistemic authority in matters of climate policy” (Beck et al. 2014). Many researchers have noted that this has been achieved by suppressing dissenting views on any issues where there is still scientific disagreement (Beck et al. 2014; Hoppe & Rodder 2019 ¨ ; van der Sluijs et al. 2010; Curry & Webster 2011; Sarewitz 2011; Hulme 2013). As a result, an accurate knowledge of those issues where there is ongoing scientific dissensus (and why) is often missing from the IPCC reports. This is concerning for policy makers relying on the IPCC reports because, as van der Sluijs et al. (2010) note, “The consensus approach deprives policy makers of a full view of the plurality of scientific opinions within and between the various scientific disciplines that study the climate problem” (van der Sluijs et al. 2010). This suppression of open-minded scientific inquiry is hindering scientific progress into improving our understanding of these challenging issues.

Beck et al 2014 will require an active link.

Abstract from Hoppe & Rodder, 2019:

Abstract:
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) proceeds on the assumption that scientific consensus is a tool for successful climate communication. While 'speaking with one voice' has contributed to the Panel's success in putting climate change on the public and political agenda, the consensus policy is also contested, as our literature analysis (n=106) demonstrates. The arguments identified thereby inform a survey of climate scientists (n=138), who are the ones responsible for realising the policy. The data indicate moderate support for the consensus policy but significantly more in traditional climate sciences than in social sciences, life- and geosciences.

Abstract from van der Slujis et al, 2010:

Abstract​

Climate change may pose considerable challenges to coastal cities, particularly in low-lying urban deltas. Impacts are, however, associated with substantial uncertainties. This paper studies an uncertainty-robust adaptation strategy: strengthening the resilience of the impacted system. This approach is operationalised for the city of Rotterdam, using literature study, interviews, and a workshop. Potential impacts have been explored using national climate statistics and scenarios and a set of ‘wildcards’ (imaginable surprises). Sea level rise, particularly in combination with storm surge, and enduring heat and drought are the most relevant potential stresses in the area. These can lead to damage, loss of image, and societal disruption. Unclear responsibilities enhance disruption. ‘Resilience principles’ made the concept of resilience sufficiently operational for local actors to explore policy options. Useful principles for urban resilience include: homeostasis, omnivory, high flux, flatness, buffering, redundancy, foresight and preparedness/planning, compartmentalisation, and flexible planning/design. A resilience approach makes the system less prone to disturbances, enables quick and flexible responses, and is better capable of dealing with surprises than traditional predictive approaches. Local actors frame resilience as a flexible approach to adaptation that would be more suitable and tailored to local situations than rigid top–down regulations. In addition to a change in policy, it would require a more pro-active mentality among the population.

Abstract from Curry & Webster, 2011:
Abstract:

How to understand and reason about uncertainty in climate science is a topic that is receiving increasing attention in both the scientific and philosophical literature. This paper provides a perspective on exploring ways to understand, assess, and reason about uncertainty in climate science, including application to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment reports. Uncertainty associated with climate science and the science–policy interface presents unique challenges owing to the complexity of the climate system itself, the potential for adverse socioeconomic impacts of climate change, and the politicization of proposed policies to reduce societal vulnerability to climate change. The challenges to handling uncertainty at the science– policy interface are framed using the “monster” metaphor, whereby attempts to tame the monster are described. An uncertainty lexicon is provided that describes the natures and levels of uncertainty and ways of representing and reasoning about uncertainty. Uncertainty of climate models is interpreted in the context of model inadequacy, uncertainty in model parameter values, and initial condition uncertainty. This article examines the challenges of building confidence in climate models and, in particular, the issue of confidence in simulations of the twenty-first-century climate. The treatment of uncertainty in the IPCC assessment reports is examined, including the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report conclusion regarding the attribution of climate change in the latter half of the twentieth century. Ideas for monster-taming strategies are discussed for institutions, individual scientists, and communities.

Abstract from Sarewitz, 2011:

Abstract​

Climate science and climate policy have been tightly linked for more than two decades. Science is supposed to provide the factual basis for action on climate, and a single policy approach to dealing with climate (through the UN Framework Convention process) has been dominant throughout this period. As a result, debates about climate policy and debates about climate science are impossible to disaggregate, and opposition to the prevailing international climate regime is often expressed as distrust of the science. Until new policy options are available that can enfranchise more diverse political constituencies, climate science will continue to exist as a largely political phenomenon. WIREs Clim Change 2011 2 475–481 DOI: 10.1002/wcc.126

Abstract from Hulme, 2013:

Abstract​

Landscapes generate a wide range of valuable ecosystem services, yet land-use decisions often ignore the value of these services. Using the example of the United Kingdom, we show the significance of land-use change not only for agricultural production but also for emissions and sequestration of greenhouse gases, open-access recreational visits, urban green space, and wild-species diversity. We use spatially explicit models in conjunction with valuation methods to estimate comparable economic values for these services, taking account of climate change impacts. We show that, although decisions that focus solely on agriculture reduce overall ecosystem service values, highly significant value increases can be obtained from targeted planning by incorporating all potential services and their values and that this approach also conserves wild-species diversity.
***********************************************************************

It is not the drive to present a scientific consensus that has given the IPCC any epistemic authority it may possess. It is the scientific consensus itself.

 

[ding]

It is not the drive to present a scientific consensus that has given the IPCC any epistemic authority it may possess. It is the scientific consensus itself.

Incorrect. It's the money.

 

[Crick]

Incorrect. It's the money.

Money doesn't produce epistemic authority

 

[ding]

Money doesn't produce epistemic authority

Correct. It produces the desired model results. The problem is they need it to be sensational and time works against them.